Re: Hot standby, recovery infra

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby, recovery infra
Date: 2009-01-30 09:33:19
Message-ID: 4982C95F.5060306@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I just realized that the new minSafeStartPoint is actually exactly the
same concept as the existing minRecoveryPoint. As the recovery
progresses, we could advance minRecoveryPoint just as well as the new
minSafeStartPoint.

Perhaps it's a good idea to keep them separate anyway though, the
original minRecoveryPoint might be a useful debugging aid. Or what do
you think?

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-30 10:34:21 Re: Hot standby, recovery infra
Previous Message Zdenek Kotala 2009-01-30 08:24:59 Re: Commitfest infrastructure (was Re: 8.4 release planning)